Can a village put a part-time police officer's towing business on the official rotation list the police use to call towers?

Plain-English summary

A part-time officer of the Wappingers Falls village police also ran an auto service station and towing business. The village attorney asked whether the officer's company could be added to the village's approved tow list. The list was the rotation the dispatcher worked through whenever a driver did not pick a tower; once a company was called, it dropped to the bottom until every other company had a turn.

The AG concluded the officer's business could be on the list, but with safeguards. Two specific scenarios were called out. First, his company should not be called when he is the responding officer at the scene of the accident or impoundment. Second, other officers on the force should not be steering individual drivers toward his business in place of the rotation. Both situations would create either an actual conflict or the appearance of one.

The AG drew on a 1997 opinion (97-37) holding that a municipality can maintain an exclusive call list, and a 1997 opinion (97-5) on appearance-of-impropriety standards for public officials. The combined rule: an automatic rotation neutralizes most of the conflict risk, but the village still has to manage edge cases by procedure.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Common questions

Why is the rotation system the linchpin of this opinion?

Because rotation removes officer discretion. If the next-up tower is determined by the list, no individual officer is picking the company, and the officer-business owner does not get an unfair share of calls. Without rotation, the conflict would be hard to manage because any call to the officer's company looks like favoritism.

Why is the officer barred from his own business being called to a scene he is working?

Two reasons. The officer is in a position to influence the post-accident situation (e.g., when the tow is needed, the priority, where the vehicle goes), and any benefit he obtains from the tow contract while wearing the badge looks bad even if nothing inappropriate happens. The AG framed this as both an actual conflict and an appearance problem.

Can colleagues recommend the officer's business directly to a driver?

The AG said no. Even if the rotation list governs default calls, a driver who chooses his own tower is outside the rotation, and a colleague nudging a driver toward the officer's company creates exactly the kind of impropriety the rotation was supposed to prevent.

Does the business still have to meet the standards for being on the list?

Yes. The opinion notes that the officer's business has to meet whatever standards the village applies to any other towing company seeking placement on the list (insurance, equipment, response time, and so on). The conflict analysis is in addition to, not in place of, the basic qualification requirements.

Was this the village's only way to handle the situation, or could a stricter rule be adopted?

The AG identified the minimum safeguards that would let the officer's business participate. A village could decide as a matter of policy that no officer's outside business may be on the list at all. The opinion does not require participation, only permits it with safeguards.

Background and statutory framework

New York's general framework for public-official conflicts comes from the General Municipal Law (Article 18 on conflicts of interest) and decades of AG and ethics-board opinions that flesh out an "avoid even the appearance of impropriety" standard. The 1998 opinion does not cite a specific GML provision because the rotation tow list does not involve a direct contract with the officer; it involves operational discretion by his employer. The analysis is therefore an appearance-of-impropriety inquiry under the AG's broader public-trust line.

Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 97-37 established that a municipality can maintain an exclusive list of qualified towers and exclude others. Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 97-5 sets out the appearance-of-impropriety baseline that public officials should avoid circumstances that could compromise impartiality.

Citations

• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 97-37 (municipality may establish a qualified-tower list).
• Op Atty Gen (Inf) No. 97-5 (appearance-of-impropriety standard for public officials).

Source

• Landing page: https://ag.ny.gov/libraries-documents/opinions/opinions-year
• Original PDF: https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/I_98-39_pw.pdf

Original opinion text

A village may permit a part-time police officer's towing
business to be placed on the list from which the village police
force selects companies to tow disabled or impounded vehicles,
provided the village takes appropriate steps to eliminate any
potential conflicts of interests.

October 5, 1998
Louis J. Viglotti, Esq.
Village Attorney
Village of Wappingers Falls
2 South Avenue
Wappingers Falls, NY 12590

Informal Opinion
No. 98-39

Dear Mr. Viglotti:
You have asked whether a police officer employed part-time
by the Village of Wappingers Falls who also runs an automobile
service station and towing business may have his company placed
on the list from which the Village police force selects
businesses to tow disabled or impounded vehicles. You note that
the list has been approved by the Village Board and is used to
avoid random and discretionary selection of towing companies by
police officers.
In a telephone conversation, you advised us that the
selection of a towing company from the list proceeds in rotation.
When the need for towing services arises and the owner or
operator of the vehicle does not select a towing company, the
first towing business on the list is called by a police
dispatcher. Once a towing company has been contacted by the
police force, it is not contacted again until each of the other
businesses on the list has been afforded a similar opportunity to
respond.
We previously have concluded that a municipality may
establish a list of qualified towing companies, call only those
companies when towing services are required and prohibit other
companies from soliciting towing work. Op Atty Gen (Inf)
No. 97-37. We also have frequently stated that public officials
should avoid circumstances that compromise their ability to make
impartial judgments solely in the public interest. Even the
appearance of impropriety should be avoided to maintain public
confidence in government.
See, e.g., Op Atty Gen (Inf)
No. 97-5.

2
Placement of the part-time police officer's towing business
on the list from which the Village police force selects companies
to tow disabled or impounded vehicles presents potential
conflicts of interests. For example, an appearance of
impropriety would be created if the police officer's business is
called when that officer is at the scene of an accident or
arrest. Similarly, a conflict of interests would arise if
Village police officers recommend their colleague's business to
individuals in need of towing services rather than resort to the
list.
We conclude that if the Village relies on the rotation
system for selecting towing companies and takes appropriate steps
to avoid other situations presenting potential conflicts, the
police officer's business may be placed on the list. Also, the
business would have to meet the standards applied for placement
on the list.
The Attorney General renders formal opinions only to
officers and departments of State government. This perforce is
an informal and unofficial expression of the views of this
office.
Very truly yours,

SIOBHAN S. CRARY
Assistant Attorney General